This is a terrific digest of teachings. I have been studying for at least 3 years now. If only we can bring this insight to those who are suffering and bringing suffering to others.
There are two truths in Buddhism, conventional and ultimate truth. This penetrating insight dates back to the original Buddha. Understanding the two truths and the relationship between them is vital in seeing through the illusion of inherent existence and realizing emptiness or Śūnyatā.
Nagarjuna’s philosophy of the Middle Way or Mahyamaka school of Buddhism shows how the two truths are different and yet despite this difference are critically the same. An understanding of this paradox is a journey of remarkable insight and clarity. Nagarjuna’s doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness is imperative on this account.
The references used for this article focused on the brilliant works of Jay Garfield, Professor of Philosophy, Buddhist scholar and translator.
Conventional truth involves our everyday experience and understanding of the way the phenomenal world appears and functions. If our senses and cognition are in working order we recognize that fire burns, that dark clouds foreshadow rain and that birds and not elephants fly. Conventional truth is our agreed upon identification of things and how they work, and this understanding directs our worldly activities.
Conventional truth includes what is called valid cognition because it is able to distinguish conventional truth from conventional falsehood, an important difference. For example, there are consequences in distinguishing a snake from a rope and that sense of being right matters.1 If there was no reliability to our everyday assessments our activity would be senseless. There is a coherence, so that conventional truth cannot be constructed randomly or simply as we choose.
However, our conventional reality is also deceptive. Objects, both coarse as in a rock and subtle as in thought, appear as distinct entities when they are not. Phenomena are mistakenly perceived and conceptualized as self-established, each with their own core nature that makes them what they are. In Buddhism, this deception is called inherent existence and is identified as the root error responsible for suffering.
Through examination and analysis, the Middle Way school asserts that no independent phenomena exist whatsoever. While objects appear to exist as separate things, this sensory-cognitive appearance is illusory. Phenomena are neither self-created nor self-enduring, but arise in dependence upon conditions without a nature or essence of their own. The example of fire is classic in illustrating what it means to depend upon conditions, one of the key types of dependencies in emptiness teachings.
Fire, which is seen to fundamentally exist, depends upon oxygen, fuel, heat, friction, and other innumerable conditions to appear, and does not exist intrinsically, as a thing in itself. If the conditions for fire are removed, there will be no fire. Fire cannot ignite itself or burn itself. The characteristic of fire depends upon conditions that are not considered to be fire and that are also dependently arisen. For instance, air is not considered to be fire because fire is not found in air. Nor is fuel such as wood, that also depends upon sun, rain, soil, etc., considered to be fire either. Fire, like all phenomena, is unfindable because it has no separate nature. Because fire does not independently exist, it appears under certain conditions and no longer appears when conditions change.
The assumption that objects inherently exist does not hold up upon deeper examination. This does not mean that fire does not exist at all, but that there is no independent nature or essence that is fire. If things existed in and of themselves rather than dependently, everything would be isolated and unchanging and nothing would relate to anything. It is the illusion of the inherent existence of phenomena that Buddhist philosophy targets and its nonexistence is the meaning of the word emptiness.
The Buddhist insight that form is empty is not an outright denial of phenomena but of their independent status. It is the understanding that the only kind of reality phenomena can possibly have would be interdependent and thus essenceless, empty. This leads to a central realization regarding the meaning of conventional truth. To recognize that phenomena dependently exist is to see that because they cannot ultimately be singled out, they can only be conventionally designated and conventionally true. This difficult and subtle point will be elaborated upon throughout the article.
“We do not say that because things are empty they do not exist; we say that because things exist they are empty.” A Prasaṅgika-Madhyamaka Tibetan saying 2
Because everything is empty of an essential, definable nature, conventional truth not only depends upon conditions but upon thought. The conventional designation of phenomena does not point to inherently existent things, but are relative, relational characterizations, like large is to small, or as smooth is to rough. What we consider to be different things, depend upon other things to be considered different. When characteristics are seen to exist independently, they deceptively appear to have their own inherent nature. Such reification is a conceptual overlay that gives the false impression that characteristics stand outside of thought as their own separate things.
This reification process also mistakes empty, relative characteristics to be the properties, as they are literally called, of an object or objects, as in it’s solid or they’re shiny. It mistakes relative descriptions as being owned by or belonging to an object, or to a subject as in the case of a self. But there are no objects hiding behind these characteristics, collecting or harboring them, no concealed core in which to find the essence of things. There are not two objects, one with characteristics and one without characteristics. Instead, all objects are designated on the basis of relationally described characteristics and to be an object is merely to be characterized.
We call a table a table because the top is characterized as firm rather than pliable, because it has legs or a base for height, and functions in one way relative to another, not because it possesses a table nature or essence. For if it was taken apart it would no longer be identified as a table. This same understanding can be applied to a person. There is no core nature that establishes a separate self, no center to which mind and body parts or characteristics belong. Tables, fire, people and all phenomena are designated by thought in dependence upon relationally characterized parts. They do not exist objectively, from their own side.
This is why conventional truth is referred to as nominal truth, as true in name only. It is to point out that what depends upon conditions cannot have an essential nature or existence that can be pointed to, so that all objects of knowledge can only be nominal designations. This does not mean that everything is only a name in the sense of being reducible to independent and imaginary mental activity. If that was so, whether something was said to be a snake or a rope would make no difference and what was conventionally designated would have no rhyme or reason. To exist nominally means that as everything is interdependent and boundaryless, nothing can ultimately be identified. To say that phenomena are nominal is to say that they are conventionally constructed by what works, by what yields reliable results, not by what is, as in identifying real, self-grounded things.
We do not end up with objective truth in which our observations reference truly definable phenomena. There is no observer that is separate from the observed and vice versa. Like fire and light, subject and object are co-arisen and thus, both are empty. But this is not to suggest that we are left with nonexistence or nonsense either. A snake is distinguished from a rope amid the coherence of interdependent existence, but not because a snake and rope have their own self-nature.
This is the teaching of dependent arising, the teaching of the Middle Way, neither reifying conventional phenomena nor dismissing them as nonexistent. Phenomena appear, function and exhibit consequences, but do so dependently and conventionally. We need to engage in a vision of the essenceless interdependence of things, of the empty interrelatedness of what is neither thing nor nothing, like objects in a mirror or like echoes, like interreflections rather than entities.
“Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist.” 3
When phenomena are understood as dependent, conventional designations, this constitutes a conventional truth and not a conventional falsehood. Deconstructing deceptive appearances involves another kind of insight as well, a non-conceptual mode of apprehension that Buddhism calls ultimate truth. There are two truths, and one cannot be understood without the other.
Conventional truth is truth about phenomena that is inferred through cognition. When conventional truth asserts the emptiness of phenomena it does so conceptually and linguistically, through the abstract construction and analysis of conceptual objects. Ultimate truth is different in this regard. It is the direct, non-conceptual perception of the emptiness of phenomena. It is like realizing that something you were looking for is not there, and right then, directly perceiving the absence of the object. The ultimate truth of emptiness is not mediated by thought at the time of the apprehension. It is not a conceptual realization. There is no reification involved, no subject-object duality present. The absence is objectless, non-deceptive, free from conceptual construction.
When the inherent existence of an object or property is looked for using ultimate analysis, as in a pot, it cannot be found. A shift then occurs and the meditator experiences a vacuity, directly perceiving the absence. With practice, as one continues to negate the inherent existence of all kinds of objects, as well as processes such as cause and effect and motion, emptiness becomes global. The illusion of inherent existence is dispelled. When one is no longer ruled by the attraction and aversion that accompanies the reification of phenomena, equanimity is finally possible.
From the ultimate standpoint, there are no phenomena or for that matter standpoints. Being dependently arisen, phenomena are ultimately unfindable, which includes finding that they are empty. The conventional designation of objects requires conceptual boundaries in which to single things out and ultimately there are no boundaries, no independent things to designate. Objects are a conventional construct. Only the conventional can name things, as conceptual abstractions amid a sea of interdependencies, without that sea being a definable whole either.
Emptiness is an absence, a negation of inherent existence, nothing more substantive or eliminative than that. Ultimate analysis does not negate conventional existence or truth. It is merely the superimposition of inherent existence upon conventional, phenomenal appearances that ultimate analysis targets. After all, the conventional is conventional by definition, nothing more. When objects cannot be found from an ultimate perspective it means only that they do not inherently exist, not that they do not conventionally exist and in a way that works in everyday life. Conventional existence yields reliable causes and effects and works precisely because it is dependent and empty.
When inherent existence is globally negated through ultimate analysis, conventional images do not then disappear, but no longer deceive. There is no need to withdraw from objects, for they are directly and immediately recognized as illusory-like. In order to experience the direct, non-deceptive force of emptiness, the liberating role of ultimate truth is required. It is not enough to conceptually infer the emptiness of things. Deception cannot be penetrated through conventional analysis alone. However, without the role of conventional truth there could be no liberation. Conventional truth is the ladder by which the deceptive structure of its own conceptuality is ultimately undermined.
The direct perception of emptiness depends upon conventionally designated phenomena to discover that they are empty. Conventional truth provides the conceptual force necessary to subsequently perceive the ultimate emptiness of phenomena. Ultimate truth is not more than the emptiness of phenomena. If ultimate truth did not depend upon phenomena to be empty, then our reasoning becomes an absurdity. For an absence or negation must be an absence or negation of something. Furthermore, we risk falling into nihilism by equating emptiness with nothingness. This is why it is so important to identify the object of negation to be only the inherent existence of phenomena, not their conventional existence, and to recognize ultimate truth as only that absence. Liberation requires a well-reasoned path.
“Since objects do not exist through their own nature, they are established as existing through the force of convention.” 4 Je Tsongkhapa
Ultimate truth does not point to a transcendent reality, but to the transcendence of deception.5 It is critical to emphasize that the ultimate truth of emptiness is a negational truth. In looking for inherently existent phenomena it is revealed that they cannot be found. This absence is not an entity, just as a room without an elephant in it does not contain an elephantless substance.6 Even conventionally, elephantlessness does not exist. Ultimate truth or emptiness does not point to an essence or nature, however subtle, that everything is made of.
Together, conventional and ultimate truth give us insight into the two different, yet corresponding modes of apprehending emptiness. Conventional truth explains emptiness as dependent arising and ultimate truth demonstrates the “unfindablility,” the emptiness of phenomena.7 Conventionally, phenomena arise, have location and function, without such arising, location or function being actual in the realist sense, which is their ultimate truth. This is the emptiness of phenomena and thus, their mere conventional existence, the only existence we can know or speak of.
Conventional and ultimate truth are interrelated ways of understanding emptiness. Yet there is another vital insight needed to explain why conventional and ultimate truths are not dualistic and this takes us to the doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness.
The Emptiness of Emptiness
Nagarjuna’s doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness involves many reasonings that interrelate in deep and comprehensive ways. To begin with, to be empty is to be dependently arisen and emptiness is no exception. Ultimate truth is fully dependent upon conventional phenomena to perceive their emptiness. And as entities are ultimately unfindable, this absence that is emptiness, cannot be non-empty and findable. This recognition uncovers the ultimate truth that emptiness is empty. But there is more to the argument.
It can also be deduced that if the emptiness of inherent existence is ultimately true, then emptiness must also be empty. If emptiness existed in the independent self-established sense, then emptiness would not be empty but inherently existent. And since everything is empty, that would make everything inherently existent too. So if phenomena were empty, but emptiness was non-empty, the ultimate truth of the negation of inherent existence would itself be negated. Instead, the teaching that emptiness is empty is consistent with emptiness as an ultimate truth.
Nagarjuna’s reasoning extends into an eloquent somersault that completes the analysis. If emptiness is empty, as in an absence, then it can only conventionally exist.9 For there is nothing that can be identified about the emptiness of things, as in the example of elephantlessness. What is not conventionally designated does not exist in any positive sense, is not an object, hence its emptiness. Therefore, to be empty is to only conventionally exist and likewise, to conventionally exist is the only way to be empty. Furthermore, as there are no true objects to know, conventional truth is also the only truth there is. This is the ultimate truth of emptiness and thus, a conventional truth.10 The doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness culminates in the insight that the two truths, the ultimate and conventional are ontologically the same, like two different sides of the same coin.
To recognize emptiness as conventional is to thoroughly refute inherent existence and to underscore the recognition that emptiness is the emptiness of conventional phenomena, nothing more substantive than that.11 This insight undermines a contradictory and dualistic reality where emptiness is totally real, while the conventional is totally unreal. Nagarjuna’s doctrine negates ultimate truth as an independent base from which to assert an objective, non-empty view. All views can only be conventionally true.
“Therefore it is said that whoever makes a philosophical view out of emptiness is indeed lost.” Nagarjuna
Nagarjuna’s doctrine unifies the two truths as mutually dependent, as the ultimate absence of inherent existence and of the corresponding conventionality of all truth. The doctrine boldly reaffirms emptiness by asserting ultimate truth as dependent and conventional despite the importance of the different lens and different purpose of the two truths. For the ultimate truth of emptiness is non-deceptive only as an absence, not in the positive sense of existence or truth.12 Relatedly, conventional reality deceptively appears because it is empty, because ultimately all designation involves a kind of fabrication, though conventionally true.
The doctrine consistently upholds a non-foundational, empty relativity. To realize emptiness is to recognize that there can be no ultimate reference points and therefore no ultimate positions or views. It is to appreciate the negative assertion that as soon as anything is identified, it can only be a conventional designation as nothing can truly be located or pointed to. The doctrine reveals that the ultimate truth about reality is that it is empty of any ultimate nature and thus of any ultimate truth. This penetrating and paradoxical insight reaffirms the emptiness of inherent existence including objects of knowledge.
The emptiness of emptiness refutes ultimate truth as yet another argument for essentialism under the guise of being beyond the conventional or as the foundation of it. To realize emptiness is not to find a transcendent place or truth to land in but to see the conventional as merely conventional. Here lies the key to liberation. For to see the deception is to be free of deception, like a magician who knows the magic trick. When one is no longer fooled by false appearances, phenomena are neither reified nor denied. They are understood interdependently, as ultimately empty and thus, as only conventionally real. This is the Middle Way.
The two truths are different aspects of the same emptiness, the ultimate emptiness of phenomena and their mere conventionality.13 Nagarjuna’s doctrine uncovers the ultimate truth of emptiness as empty, as conventional, nothing more substantive, a complete and consistent deconstruction of inherent existence. The doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness reclaims a world where mountains are mountains, but no longer are they inherently existent mountains. They are empty and conventional, the only way there could be mountains.
1. Jay Garfield. Moonshadows, “Taking Conventional Truth Seriously.” 2011,
2. Jay Garfield. Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation, 2002, as cited on pg. 71.
3. Arya Nagarjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Translation and Commentary, Jay Garfield. 1995, pg. 69
4. Je Tsongkhapa. Ocean of Reasoning, 2006, pg. 39.
5. Garfield. Moonshadows, pg. 36.
6. Garfield. Empty Words, pg. 50.
7. Jay Garfield. “Madhyamaka is Not Nihilism,” 2012, pg. 12.
8. Garfield. Empty Words, pg. 51.
9. Garfield. Moonshadows, pg. 37.
10. Garfield. Moonshadows, pg. 38.
11. Garfield. Empty Words, pg. 39.
12. Garfield. Empty Words, pg. 64-65
13. Garfield. Empty Words, pg. 64.
Garfield, Jay L. Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Garfield, Jay, L., Priest, Graham. “Mountains Are Just Mountains.” Article from Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Garfield, Jay L. “Taking Conventional Truth Seriously: Authority Regarding Deceptive Reality.” Article from Moonshadows: Conventional Truth in Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Garfield, Jay L. “Madhyamaka is Not Nihilism.” Smith College, University of Melbourne, Central University of Tibetan Studies, 2012.
Nagarjuna, Arya. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Translation and Commentary, Garfield, Jay L., Oxford University Press, 1995.
Je Tsongkhapa. Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nagarjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Translated by Jay Garfield and Geshe Ngawang Samten. Oxford University Press, 2006.
20 Responses to “The Two Truths of Buddhism and The Emptiness of Emptiness”
I posted this in the new emptiness group on facbook….–Greg
The last sentence contains the whole exquisite teaching:
“They are essenceless, empty and conventional, the only way there could be mountains.”
And I reflect –
… we are essenceless “selfs”,
empty and conventional,
the only way we could possibly be a “me”.
Thank you dear Susan.
Susan, this is wonderful. It speaks to the empty interrelation of all phenomena no matter what is being designated or labeled.
Always direct and insightful.
Thank you so much for this explanation, it has a stunning clarity and has helped to dispell much confusion on the subject.
This essay reflects the clear light of the Middle Way. It may be said that the Buddhadharma in its entirety is an expression of skillful means, a pointing to the moon, up to the very limits of language and discriminating thought. When we light one candle from another, the flame is neither the same nor different. Careful study of the two truths, equally neither the same nor different, is the path to freedom from death and fear. In the tradition of sincere reflection upon who we are, Susan has lit another candle, recalling once more that in the practice of awareness, “things are not what they appear to be, nor are they otherwise.” – Cal
I had to give a presentation on Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way and the examples of the seed and the sprout helped clarify what I was trying to say.
A beautiful and clear explanation of emptiness. Thank you.
Thank you – this is such a wonderfully clear and helpful article.
Best explanation ever. Just enough words, not one word extra, nor one word too few.
fine article,it is useful to me and others,please just keep it….
If emptiness is empty then doesn’t that say that conventional truth is not empty since seeing conventional truth as empty relays on the fact that emptiness is there for it to be there doesn’t it have to be non . Empty
Or am I mistaking emptiness with nothingness
Also how to use emtiness as a meditation that w actually remove suffering
Do I just need a sudden realization or more extensive meditation
To say that emptiness is empty means that even emptiness exists only conventionally, merely as a relative designation. To exist conventionally is to not exist in a grounded, fundamental way. What is conventional is like a label, a construct, a story. For whatever exists dependently cannot have its own being or self. To say that even emptiness is empty, means that all entities are conventional constructs and not truly fixed and separate things, including emptiness.
Regarding meditation, that is an involved question, but start with understanding, with insight into the difference between how things are empty, versus how they falsely appear as if inherently existent, as if each has a core essence. This is what needs to be seen through. It requires study and reflection. This rich process is not about a “sudden realization.”
Very well explained with plenty of detail and differentiation. This confirms my understanding.
I like the analogy of fire. It can not exist by itself. It needs to have fuel and oxygen and space, etc. Yet the fire seems a thing unto itself it can not exist without dependence on these other objects. Everything is dependent.
I like the analogy of fire. It can not exist by itself. It needs to have fuel and oxygen and space, etc. Fire seems a thing unto itself it can not exist without dependence on these other objects. Everything is dependent.
Sounds good to me
Amazing to see how this reasoning works. I “get it” more every time I read it. Truly greatful for this article and website.